A British journalist's court bid to unmask the financial backers of a group of climate change sceptics is being used to raise questions about how think-tanks are funded in Australia and whether they deserve tax exemptions.

The UK's Charity Commission, which regulates charities in the UK, is being asked to release a document that would show the start-up funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, chaired by former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson.

Launched in November 2009, the foundation has consistently challenged the mainstream scientific view that human emissions of greenhouse gases represent a significant risk to the planet and societies.

Later today, freelance journalist Brendan Montague will appeal to the UK's Information Rights Tribunal for the release of a bank statement provided to the Charity Commission by Lord Lawson, which Mr Montague believes will identify the source of a $50,000 seed donation.

The case has raised the issue of how think-tanks engaged in public policy debates are funded and whether potential conflicts of interest should be declared. None are required by law to publicly disclose their funders.

Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Australia's Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, has backed Mr Montague's case.

Advertisement

Professor Hamilton is a long-time critic of think-tanks promoting outlying views on the risks of human-caused climate change, including the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs.

"The public should know who is funding climate denial so they can properly judge the information put out by organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation,” he said.

“In Australia, the IPA is a leading source of climate disinformation, yet it retreats into secrecy whenever it is asked about the source of its funding. Environment groups are upfront about their funding, yet denialists claim privacy."

IPA executive director John Roskam said anyone who donated to his organisation, which promoted free-market principals and strongly opposed the Gillard government's carbon price legislation, was free to identify themselves and how much they gave.

“But the reason we don't reveal our donors is because unfortunately our donors - and people who were believed to be our donors - have been intimidated because of their supposed support for us,” he said.

“I think requiring disclosure could discourage people donating. And I also think that issues of people's privacy have to be considered too. Is there a difference between requiring disclosure of people who donate to think-tanks versus people who are members of political parties, for example?”

The public should know who is funding climate denial so they can properly judge the information put out

John Daley, chief executive of think-tank the Grattan Institute, which has released several policy papers on climate change, said organisations like his should disclose their funders.

“Grattan Institute does disclose all sponsors, as well as anyone who pays our staff to undertake outside activity," he said.

"Think-tanks aim to change public policy. Such change often has benefits, or causes losses, for individuals and firms.

“If think-tanks really exist to further the public interest, then at the very least they should be transparent about potential conflicts and, of course, should do their best to avoid them.”

Mr Daley said the reason firms chose to “agitate for policy change” through think-tanks was primarily to “lend credibility to their cause”.

“If a think tank is lending its name to a cause, therefore, it should be transparent about who is paying,” he said.

In Australia, some think-tanks such as the Lowy Institute or the Grattan Institute are registered as charities, and these don't have to pay income tax, and benefit from GST concessions.

Others, such as the IPA, are registered as companies. Donations to most think-tanks are tax-deductible.

Members of Lord Lawson's think-tank have been quoted as experts and written several articles in sections of mainstream Australian media, arguing against strong action on greenhouse gas emissions.

Two prominent Australian academics have provided witness statements to the court in support of Mr Montague, who is also backed by NASA's James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists.

Mr Montague, who has worked for national newspapers the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail in the UK, said because Lord Lawson's charity was lobbying heavily for changes in climate change and energy policy, this could affect the lives of “millions of people”.

“Climate change will have dramatic impacts in Australia," he told brisbanetimes.com.au.

"Therefore it would be unfair on the people of Australia for a UK think-tank to be trying to influence government policy that's funded by unknown sources.”

Two prominent Australian climate change sceptics – Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University, and Professor Ian Plimer, a mining company director and geologist at the University of Adelaide – are members of the foundation's academic advisory committee.

The first available set of public accounts shows the foundation, which has declared Australia as one of its areas of operation to UK authorities, received £494,625 in donations in its first year.

In August last year, Lord Lawson was in Australia to take part in a debate, screened on ABC Television, in which he argued it would be “immoral” to deny poor people in developing countries access to cheap, carbon-based energy such as coal.

In interviews, Lord Lawson, whose daughter is TV chef Nigella, described wind farms as “primitive and inefficient”, dismissed climate change computer models as “clearly rubbish” and claimed scientists were not in agreement about the risks of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

During the debate, co-sponsored by The Spectator Magazine and the free-market think-tank the Institute for Public Affairs, Lord Lawson said anyone who claimed carbon dioxide was “pollution” or “dirty” was “either ignorant or a liar”

The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, flew to London in October to deliver the foundation's annual lecture, which was heavily criticised by climate scientists for inaccuracies.

During his speech, Cardinal Pell claimed global warming had stopped, carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and that the UN's influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lacked evidence.

In November, former prime minister John Howard wrote the foreword to a foundation report that also criticised the IPCC.

In the report, Mr Howard described himself as an “agnostic” on global warming but claimed “some global warming zealots” had engaged in “intellectual bullying”.

Supporting Mr Montague's case is Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, who claimed the foundation's activities were “pernicious”.

“Disclosure of the foundation's funding is in the public's interest because it can point to the motivation underlying its misinformation, which in turn will enable the public to place the information in its proper context,” he said.

Mr Montague, a director of the Request Initiative that makes FOI requests on behalf of charities, said the public had a right to know the foundation's funders and that this outweighed the “privacy of one single wealthy individual”.

Lord Lawson has not commented publicly on the case, but stated previously in an annual report that “we do not accept donations either from the energy industry or from anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry”.